list_networks

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the scope of what is listed, but it does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, potential latency, or edge cases (e.g., no interfaces found). This is adequate but not particularly rich, matching the get_calls calibration example.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters), the presence of an output schema, and annotations indicating a safe read operation, the description sufficiently conveys the purpose and scope. Additional details about return values are unnecessary because the output schema covers them.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is effectively 100% (empty property set). Baseline for zero params is 4, and the description does not need to provide parameter details since there are none.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('network interfaces on the node'). It enumerates the exact types of interfaces included (bridges, bonds, VLANs, physical NICs) and what information is returned (configured and active state), which distinguishes it from sibling list tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implicitly defines when to use the tool: whenever node network interface details are needed. It differentiates from siblings by the resource focus, but it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusionary conditions, making 'clear context, no exclusions' the best fit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.